Monday, April 27, 2009

At the Global Conference dinner tonight, part of which was a panel discussion on sports philanthropy by Andre Agassi, Mia Hamm, Tony Hawk, and Annika Sorenstam, I sat next to a conservative member of Parliament, David Davis. He told
me this story:

Davis's move - to "take a stand" on what he said was the "relentless erosion"
of freedoms by the government - was taken against the wishes of David Cameron,
who beat him in a Tory leadership election in 2005.

Cameron made his disappointment clear by replacing Davis as shadow home
secretary with the shadow attorney general, Dominic Grieve, and saying Davis had
no guarantee of returning to the front bench if - as all parties expect - he
wins the byelection. ...

Davis seemed unaware he had consigned himself to the backbenches, telling the
BBC: "I may or may not be on the backbenches … This issue matters more to me
than my job."

Labour attempted to undercut Davis by announcing that they, like the Liberal
Democrats, would not contest the byelection... But
Davis's decision to resign and stand again - a move last seen on the British
mainland in 1982, and not since 1973 on a single issue of principle - injects
new unpredictability into British politics. ...

A Conservative source said Davis had had only three hours' sleep on Tuesday
night and was going through some kind of personal crisis. Davis brushed the
suggestion aside, saying: "Pop psychology in politics is very amusing but rarely
right."

In his resignation statement, delivered outside the Commons at 1pm, Davis
said: "I will argue in this byelection against the slow strangulation of
fundamental British freedoms by this government." He said the undermining of civil liberties through moves such as detention
and the introduction of ID cards "cannot go on".

"It must be stopped, and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me
to take a stand," he told reporters...

He said his current issue is torture:

Ministers
face torture pressure, BBC: UK ministers must answer allegations that
Britain was complicit in torture, a senior Conservative MP has said. David Davis
said a High Court ruling on Wednesday alleged that Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident
held in the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, had been tortured. ...

The judges said the UK's attorney general has begun a criminal investigation
into possible torture against Mr Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice
Lloyd Jones said the attorney general would be investigating the issues of
"torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".

The judges said they wanted the full details of the alleged torture to be
published in the interests of safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and
democratic accountability.

But they had been persuaded that it was not in the public interest to publish
those details as the US government could then "inflict on the citizens of the
United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time
when a serious terrorist threat still pertains". ...

No 10 said it was not aware of any threat from the US government to withdraw
intelligence co-operation with Britain if details of the case were revealed. ...

Mr Davis said a High Court ruling, which pointed to complicity by the UK and
US authorities in his torture, was prevented from being published after the US
put pressure on the UK. ...

He said Mr Miliband should make a statement to MPs about the issue as soon as
possible to "explain what the devil is going on". He said the UK government
should make it "plain" that it did not support torture in any circumstances.

Mr Mohamed, 30, has been held in Guantanamo for four years... But war crimes
charges against him were dropped in October. ...

Last August, Lord Justice Thomas said evidence relating to the case should be
disclosed, saying it was "essential". However, the British government argued the
disclosure of certain material would cause "significant damage to national
security".

Mr Davis said it appeared the Bush administration had "threatened" the UK
government about the repercussions should details of the case be made public.

"Frankly it is none of their business what our courts do," he said, adding
this was "plain fact" not merely an allegation.

"They should not seek in any circumstances to put pressure on British courts.
That's completely beyond the rule of law."

He said Mr Miliband must explain why this had happened and whether the new
Obama administration supported its predecessor's stance on the issue.

"While he is at it, he [the foreign secretary] should explain what degree of
complicity we have in this," he told the BBC.

Mr Davis said the government had taken a "highly principled public stand"
against torture but must "come clean" about whether there were cases where
British agencies ever knew about instances of torture by others. ...

Civil liberties campaigners described the judges' remarks on the case as
"astounding". Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the Bush
administration had tried "to bully" the British courts and President Obama must
make it clear he would not do the same.

And Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said all the documents in the case must be
published immediately. "There is no other terms for what the US intelligence
services are doing than blackmail," he said. "It is simply incredible that the
US government would have halted intelligence co-operation with the UK if this
information had been made public."

I encouraged him to pursue this, and the torture issue more generally,
relentlessly.

Where are the US conservatives with this kind of courage? He said that when he first came out against the 42-day detention plan, the reaction on conservative blogs was very negative. However, the comments on those blogs disagreed overwhelmingly, and in no uncertain terms, and that grassroots support as he called it along with the support of a paper (the Daily something? - sorry - I don't recall) he compared to getting the support of Fox news caused the conservative blogs (and others in the media) to change their position. And once that happened, it was "checkmate" for those within the government who opposed him.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Davis, the 42 Day Terror Detention Plan, and the US Bullying the UK over Torture

At the Global Conference dinner tonight, part of which was a panel discussion on sports philanthropy by Andre Agassi, Mia Hamm, Tony Hawk, and Annika Sorenstam, I sat next to a conservative member of Parliament, David Davis. He told
me this story:

Davis's move - to "take a stand" on what he said was the "relentless erosion"
of freedoms by the government - was taken against the wishes of David Cameron,
who beat him in a Tory leadership election in 2005.

Cameron made his disappointment clear by replacing Davis as shadow home
secretary with the shadow attorney general, Dominic Grieve, and saying Davis had
no guarantee of returning to the front bench if - as all parties expect - he
wins the byelection. ...

Davis seemed unaware he had consigned himself to the backbenches, telling the
BBC: "I may or may not be on the backbenches … This issue matters more to me
than my job."

Labour attempted to undercut Davis by announcing that they, like the Liberal
Democrats, would not contest the byelection... But
Davis's decision to resign and stand again - a move last seen on the British
mainland in 1982, and not since 1973 on a single issue of principle - injects
new unpredictability into British politics. ...

A Conservative source said Davis had had only three hours' sleep on Tuesday
night and was going through some kind of personal crisis. Davis brushed the
suggestion aside, saying: "Pop psychology in politics is very amusing but rarely
right."

In his resignation statement, delivered outside the Commons at 1pm, Davis
said: "I will argue in this byelection against the slow strangulation of
fundamental British freedoms by this government." He said the undermining of civil liberties through moves such as detention
and the introduction of ID cards "cannot go on".

"It must be stopped, and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me
to take a stand," he told reporters...

He said his current issue is torture:

Ministers
face torture pressure, BBC: UK ministers must answer allegations that
Britain was complicit in torture, a senior Conservative MP has said. David Davis
said a High Court ruling on Wednesday alleged that Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident
held in the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, had been tortured. ...

The judges said the UK's attorney general has begun a criminal investigation
into possible torture against Mr Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice
Lloyd Jones said the attorney general would be investigating the issues of
"torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".

The judges said they wanted the full details of the alleged torture to be
published in the interests of safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and
democratic accountability.

But they had been persuaded that it was not in the public interest to publish
those details as the US government could then "inflict on the citizens of the
United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time
when a serious terrorist threat still pertains". ...

No 10 said it was not aware of any threat from the US government to withdraw
intelligence co-operation with Britain if details of the case were revealed. ...

Mr Davis said a High Court ruling, which pointed to complicity by the UK and
US authorities in his torture, was prevented from being published after the US
put pressure on the UK. ...

He said Mr Miliband should make a statement to MPs about the issue as soon as
possible to "explain what the devil is going on". He said the UK government
should make it "plain" that it did not support torture in any circumstances.

Mr Mohamed, 30, has been held in Guantanamo for four years... But war crimes
charges against him were dropped in October. ...

Last August, Lord Justice Thomas said evidence relating to the case should be
disclosed, saying it was "essential". However, the British government argued the
disclosure of certain material would cause "significant damage to national
security".

Mr Davis said it appeared the Bush administration had "threatened" the UK
government about the repercussions should details of the case be made public.

"Frankly it is none of their business what our courts do," he said, adding
this was "plain fact" not merely an allegation.

"They should not seek in any circumstances to put pressure on British courts.
That's completely beyond the rule of law."

He said Mr Miliband must explain why this had happened and whether the new
Obama administration supported its predecessor's stance on the issue.

"While he is at it, he [the foreign secretary] should explain what degree of
complicity we have in this," he told the BBC.

Mr Davis said the government had taken a "highly principled public stand"
against torture but must "come clean" about whether there were cases where
British agencies ever knew about instances of torture by others. ...

Civil liberties campaigners described the judges' remarks on the case as
"astounding". Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the Bush
administration had tried "to bully" the British courts and President Obama must
make it clear he would not do the same.

And Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said all the documents in the case must be
published immediately. "There is no other terms for what the US intelligence
services are doing than blackmail," he said. "It is simply incredible that the
US government would have halted intelligence co-operation with the UK if this
information had been made public."

I encouraged him to pursue this, and the torture issue more generally,
relentlessly.

Where are the US conservatives with this kind of courage? He said that when he first came out against the 42-day detention plan, the reaction on conservative blogs was very negative. However, the comments on those blogs disagreed overwhelmingly, and in no uncertain terms, and that grassroots support as he called it along with the support of a paper (the Daily something? - sorry - I don't recall) he compared to getting the support of Fox news caused the conservative blogs (and others in the media) to change their position. And once that happened, it was "checkmate" for those within the government who opposed him.